From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minerva as a symbol of enlightened wisdom protects the believers of all religions (Daniel Chodowiecki, 1791)

Religious toleration is the condition of accepting or permitting others' religious beliefs and practices which disagree with one's own.

In a country with a state religion, toleration means that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths. It is a partial status, and might still be accompanied by forms of religious discrimination. Religious toleration as a Government policy merely means the absence of religious persecution; unlike religious liberty it does not mean that religions are equal before the law. Toleration is a privilege granted by Government (which it may do by law or charter), not a right against it; governments have often tolerated some religions and not others.

Religious toleration "as a government-sanctioned practice — the sense on which most discussion of the phenomenon relies — is not attested before the sixteenth century", which makes it rather difficult to apply the concept to topics like Persecution of religion in ancient Rome.[1]

Historically, toleration has been a contentious issue within many religions as well as between one religion and another. At issue is not merely whether other faiths should be permitted, but also whether a ruler who is a believer may be tolerant, or permit his subordinates to be.

Contents

The development of religious toleration

The concept of toleration has evolved in modern Europe, and changed during its development. For a contemporary reader there is a danger of confusing the modern connotation of words like "toleration", "religious freedom " and "liberty of conscience" with the historic meanings of these word.[2] The use of these terms in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty or by 20th century philosophers like John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin is different from the concept of religious toleration in the 17th century.[2]

To complicate matters further, the Latin tolerantia was a "highly-developed political and judicial concept in mediaeval scholastic theology and canon law."[3]Tolerantia was used to "denote the self-restraint of a civil power in the face of" outsiders, like infidels, Muslims or Jews, but also in the face of social groups like prostitutes and lepers.[3]

For individuals, religious toleration generally means an attitude of acceptance towards other people's religions. It does not mean that one views other religions as equally true; merely that others have the right to hold and practice their beliefs. This element of objection is important. People, who take these matters seriously, often experience distress when they are confronted with religious beliefs that they regard as idolatrous, superstitious, heretical or schismatic.

Contexts of religious tolerance

At least five contexts of religious tolerance can be distinguished. Religious tolerance as a state sanctioned practice can more precisely termed civil tolerance. Civil tolerance is concerned with "the policy of the state towards religious dissent".[4] In contrast to this, ecclesiastical tolerance is concerned with the degree of diversity tolerated within a particular church.[5] Without this distinction, the Christian debate on persecution and toleration in England could not be adequately understood. Furthermore, there is also a social and a polemical context of religious tolerance. The grand theme of divine tolerance is the emphasis on "the patience and longsuffering of God" as it is frequently portrayed in the Christian Bible; This image of God has been invoked by early Christian advocates of toleration.

Hinduism has earned a reputation of being highly tolerant of other religions. Rigveda says Ekam Sath Viprah Bahudha Vadanti which translates to "The truth is One, but sages call it by different Names"[6]. This tradition is evident from the fact that India chose to be a secular country even though it was created after partitioning on religious lines.

The polemical context

Sam Harris has challenged the tolerance of religion. In The End of Faith, Sam Harris asserts that we should be unwilling, as individuals, to tolerate unjustified beliefs about morality, spirituality, politics, and the origin of humanity.

1948, December 10 The United Nations General Assembly issues the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 18 declares that everyone has the right to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.[15]

1950, January 26 - Republic of India came into being as a country without a state religion and guaranteeing full freedom of religion, even-though the partition of British India was done by separating Hindu and Muslim majority territories.[16]

1965, December 7 The Roman Catholic Church Vatican II Council issues the decree Dignitatis Humanae (Religious Freedom) that states that all people must have the right to religious freedom.[17]

A genuinely democratic society requires a secular ethos: one
that does not equate morality with religion, stigmatize atheists,
defer to religious interests and aims over others or make religious
belief an informal qualification for public office. Of course,
secularism in the latter sense is not mandated by the First
Amendment. It's a matter of sensibility, not law.

If believers feel that their faith is trivialized and their
true selves compromised by a society that will not give religious
imperatives special weight, their problem is not that secularists
are antidemocratic but that democracy is antiabsolutist.

Ellen Willis, "Freedom from Religion," The Nation
(February 19, 2001)

For democrats, it's as crucial to defend secular culture as to
preserve secular law. And in fact the two projects are inseparable:
When religion defines morality, the wall between church and state
comes to be seen as immoral.